Philosophies of Arts : An Essay in Differences
Since the beginning of the eighteenth century the philosophy of art has been engaged on the project of trying to find out what the fine arts have in common and, thus, how they might be defined. Peter Kivy's purpose in this accessible and lucid book is to trace the history of that enterprise and argue that the definitional project has been unsuccessful. He offers a fruitful change of strategy: instead of engaging in an obsessive quest for sameness, let us explore the differences between the arts. He presents five case studies, three from literature, two from music. With its combination of historical and analytic approaches this is a book for a wide range of readers in philosophy, literary studies, music, and non-academic readers with interests in the arts.
- Paperback | 260 pages
- 153 x 230 x 17mm | 400g
- 06 Nov 2004
- Cambridge University Press
- Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Worked examples or Exercises
Table of contents
Preface; 1. How We Got Here, and Why; 2. Where we are; 3. Reading and representation; 4. On the unity of form and content; 5. The laboratory of fictional truth; 6. The quest for musical profundity; 7. The liberation of music; Epilogue; Notes; Bibliography.
"Peter Kivy's book is an extraordinary work that combines a great depth of scholarship and forceful philosophical analysis and argument with a rich variety of engaging illustrations from the world of fine and literary arts. He not only provides the reader with a detailed historical analysis of the history of aesthetics from Plato to Danto and Walton, but in his pursuit of the differences between the arts, introduces a novel and compelling approach that will no doubt influence current debates. This work will be especially helpful to both professionals and advanced students of aesthetics." Mark Starr, Review of Metaphysics "There are few writers on philosophical aesthetics who are such a pleasure to read as Peter Kivy, so a new book by him is always reason for celebration...his book is always fresh and combative, analytic philosophy of art at its best." The Philosophical Review